Apple has slapped back at Amazon in their messy legal tête-à-tête over whether the online megaretailer's Appstore for Android is a violation of Apple's trademark for the term "app store" – and its arguments are becoming increasingly surreal.
"Apple denies that the mark APP STORE is generic and, on that basis, denies that the …

Not Exactly

The same arguments were made for "Aspirin" and "Band-Aid". However, because of the force of popular usage, both terms were found NOT to be exclusive to any single entity. So today you have many makers of Aspirin and Band-Aids. More often than not you do see "Plastic first aid strips" or some such. But that was to distance themselves from the original maker of "Band-Aids" for marketing reason. There are many instances of non Bayer Aspirin.

"App Store" will never be limited to The Sacred J's usage alone and he knows it. But he can't give up without a "good" fight. The faithful demand it because after all, they are the faithful however misguided they might be.

well, that might work

if App Store was a unique name, but it isn't. an App is a generic term for an application, Store is a generic term for where you buy things. therefore App Store is a generic term for a place you can buy applications.

@Mike Powers

Argh, I'm on a tangent, Not Exactly

I don't identify with 'Band Aid', maybe it is a US brand. It reminds me of the unshaven musician guy. Elastoplast sticks in my memory, so I just rooted about and found 'Fast Aid assorted plasters' - quite catchy, and Porous wound dressings. Seems like I've been down the Pound Shop(TM). I also have Clotrimazole cream, at 1/4 of the price of Canestan, but not so catchy. Ok, I'll try to be serious next time.

Well

Before Bayer invented their synthetic willow bark, "aspirin" didn't exist as a word, so that is a slightly different case. The full explanation of how it became a generic word in Europe would involve invoking Goodwin's law, so I won't.

I can't comment on Band-Aid. In the UK, we call them plasters, and I'm not even sure that Band-Aid branded plasters are available for sale here. Certainly the Superdrug and Boots websites don't come up with anything, nor does mysupermarket. Those are the places most people would shop for such things.

App Store is a much weaker case than Aspirin. It might be similar to Portakabin which is vigorously defended by its owners.

I suppose Steve could argue that App stands for Apple rather than Application.

@ DavCrav

I agree with the core of your point but you shot yourself in the foot by choosing Velco. Velcr does indeed stand for Velours Crochet (velvet hook in French), so is close to app store -although abbreviated enough to be specific, I think. Not so much for app store)... shame, as all the other examples would have been fine for your argument!

The trademark is apparently for SPAM

Spam

There was no way manufacturers Hormel could (or would) have done anything about the Monty Python sketch, it boosted sales and was in no way derogatory.

Then as a result of the Monty Python sketch where it's repetition is the humour the word was carried into another realm as a description for (repetitive) junk email.

Hornel at some point tried to assert the trademark over companies selling anti-junk email software and using the word spam in their marketing.

They quite rightly failed because the word had become generic in the context of junk email, that and it was not competing in the same industry (food vs software) and it was not adversely affecting Hornel and the sales of Spam.

Hornel were very lucky to have had their product popularised in such a way and even with the use of the word in a separate context I'd say that as a result there will be a continued demand for the SPAM (TM) foodstuff as produced by Hornel, not many companies will be so lucky and in my opinion the attempted Trademark assertion over various software companies was pure folly.

Back to the topic.

When I read this story the only thought I could muster was WTF? Just WTF?

@elreg!comments!Pierre

*sigh*

DISCLAIMER DISCLAIMER DISCLAIMER DISCLAIMER DISCLAIMER

THIS POST DOES NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM EXPRESSLY IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE IN ANY SORT OF FASHION WHATSOEVER THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE CURRENTLY INTERPRETED BY THE READER OR READERS AGREE SUPPORT DEFEND OR OTHERWISE APPROVE OF THE ACTIONS ACTIVITIES STATEMENTS POSITIONS OR LEGAL ACTIONS OF APPLE COMPUTER INC OR ITS SUBSIDIARIES OR DESIGNATED AGENTS

I'm not saying I agree with the reasoning. I'm explaining it. Get the picture?

DISCLAIMER DISCLAIMER DISCLAIMER DISCLAIMER DISCLAIMER

THIS POST DOES NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM EXPRESSLY IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE IN ANY SORT OF FASHION WHATSOEVER THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE CURRENTLY INTERPRETED BY THE READER OR READERS AGREE SUPPORT DEFEND OR OTHERWISE APPROVE OF THE ACTIONS ACTIVITIES STATEMENTS POSITIONS OR LEGAL ACTIONS OF APPLE COMPUTER INC OR ITS SUBSIDIARIES OR DESIGNATED AGENTS

Who cares?

Certainly not the lawyers - they can continue to obtain insanely large legal fees from their clients while the argue that the sky is purple, the sea is mauve, the pope has muslim tendencies and bears do not, in fact, defecate in arboreal settings.

Pity the lawyers

The lawyers do their best for the clients, even if it is madness. Therein is the difference. They didn't start it, and are part of the system, like soldiers, etc. I won't downvote you for the title, though. After reading some of the learned posts on here, I can see the fun + money in the whole thing

Except that lawyers made the system

There's the difference.

The law was originally made by 'normal people' (where normal was defined as 'have big armies'), and it was then hijacked by specialists who have continued to make it more and more complex in an apparent attempt to ensure that the law can only be understood by those specific specialists.

Lawyers are only needed because lawyers have made the law too complex for anybody else to understand, mostly written in incomprehensible language.

@ratfox

No, it's not meant as a factual statement as such. It is a statement of Apple's denial of an allegation from Amazon's pleadings. If Apple didn't deny that allegation explicitly it would be deemed to be accepted, and Apple's lawyers would be verging on negligent. This quote is taken from a legal document and meant to be read in conjunction with the other documents filed at court as part of that case. It's not meant to be used as a sound bite.

Let them have the trademark...

...on the condition that an App Store is so obviously NOT a store selling apps (gee, who could make a mistake like that?), therefore Apple are forbidden to create a store, sell apps on it, and refer to it as an App Store...

So a 'drugstore" sells drugs according to this logic??

When will people realise that a name only means something when people generally accept it as a set term. Windows simply means windows and if MS want to put windows on screen then they are windows - they have no monopoly on windows. Windows as an OS is simply a term meaning the OS based on windows (hence their failure to understand the 'desktop' metaphor!) - it can only be 'owned' in that context, so MS can't sue me for painting MY windows.

A real term needs at least two words to narrow down its possible meanings: but a drugstore only becomes what it is by people accepting the "usual" meaning of the term and not a place to buy drugs. Equally I don't expect to get my computer hardware from a "hardware store".

The term produced by putting the word "app" next to "store" was introduced by Apple, and most Apple users accepted it as a term for the App Store. If others want to come along and use it like MS did with the word "windows", then they would have to have produced something novel that is accepted as such before Apple coined the term and applied to copyright it.

Generic words can always acquire specific meanings in a given context and there is no problem in their being copyrighted for that context alone. We can talk freely about app stores if we like, but Apple have every right to talk about THE App Store for a specific form of acquiring apps and copyrighting the term for that function.

To mix this issue up with the ridiculous patent trolling situation that the US has plunged itself into is just a "red herring" (my apologies to any specific red herrings reading this who are not the usual silvery edible kind and dislike being mistaken for misguided arguments).

@So a 'drugstore" sells drugs according to this logic??

Er... yes. Isn't that their primary purpose? Don't the ones where you live sell drugs? I know nowadays the look more like over-sized convenience stores, and you have to dig to find the pharmacy area, but they still sell drugs somewhere in there. It's the (depending on context) legal ones, of course, but still drugs. Ask your friendly neighborhood druggist.

sorry

you have shot down your own argument, this is about a trademark, if a trademark become generic you lose it. Just because they used App Store first (debatable..) doesn't mean that the trademark is valid.

Well...yes.

"So a 'drugstore" sells drugs according to this logic??"

Um, yes. Drug stores sell drugs. This is why we call them drug stores (those of us in North America, anyway; those in the UK would call them 'pharmacies', but never mind), and why we go there to buy drugs and fill prescriptions for drugs. I'm not quite sure what you're arguing here. Are you making the common mistake of equating the term 'drugs' with 'illegal drugs'? Aspirin's a drug, antihistamines are drugs, Viagra's a drug, all those pills you get at drug stores are indeed drugs. And indeed no-one could get a trademark on the term 'drug store' as it is a generic term for a store which sells drugs.

"Generic words can always acquire specific meanings in a given context and there is no problem in their being copyrighted for that context alone."

Indeed, but in this case the context has to be different from the generic meaning. 'Windows' is actually an excellent case in point: Microsoft only has a trademark on Windows as the term is used to describe a computer interface. It doesn't have a trademark on the generic meaning of 'windows' as 'holes in walls that you can see through', and if it had applied for one, it wouldn't have got it, because you can't trademark the commonly-accepted meaning of a pre-existing word. One company that sells windows can't apply for a trademark on the word 'windows' and preclude its competitors from calling their products 'windows'. The Microsoft patent on 'windows' relies on the term 'windows' not having been used as a generic term for an operating system / computer interface before Microsoft applied for their trademark.

Yes. Drugstores Sell Drugs.

Re: So a 'drugstore" sells drugs according to this logic??

And by what logic would a drugstore be expected to sell fish?

"A real term needs at least two words to narrow down its possible meanings:"

And with that shot to the foot, I'm guessing you would have never given the mark "Applestore" to Apple. Frankly I concur it should have never been given, but as one word it is more distinguishable and less generic; that said I would expect Granny Smith and Braeburn to be prominent products instead of all Macintosh all the time; certainly the Burchinal Red Delicious would never make an appearance. Perhaps it should have been macintosh-store or macstore (not to be confused with maxtor) would have been better.

@Hardcastle

Actually whenever I make it back to the UK, I go to Superdrug to bulk-buy Paracetamol & Ibuprofen (which are bloody expensive here), and also things like Anbesol, Lemsip and other things that are not available here...